In a recent discussion in a U3A class, there was a difference of opinion regarding whether the wish to wear a face-concealing garment reflected a cultural or a religious imperative. I asked whether the difference was important — whether the right of an individual to act in a way that many fellow citizens found discomforting was stronger if it was prompted by a religious belief than by a cultural convention. Quite a few thought it was. If so, would that be a worry? By the way, most of us understood that the wearing of a burqa reflected a cultural rather than a religious imperative. Is that true?

What a silly argument all round! The writer is mistaken about so many things perhaps the most important being the distinction between the undesirability of behaviour and need for legal intervention by the state.

Couldn't help noticing this "Please note that I am not against a social-contract, so long as it is voluntary" from Yuyutsu. Err..if you think the social contract should be voluntary then you don't really understand what the social contract is. It's not something you sign up for - its the implicit relationship between the state and the citizen.

Yuyutsu,

Thank you for the explanation. I might not go as far as you, however it is agreed that government is interfering unnecessarily in the private lives of citizens. You may have noticed this theme in my posts on other subjects. For instance, I regard it as an abomination and an abuse of power that an unwitting citizen can be declared to be in an 'de facto relationship' equating to marriage, without ever intending to be and entirely without her/his consent.

I would like there to be regular rolling review of all legislation and especially the regulations and interpretations enacted by bureaucrats under delegation from the minister.

Hilarious :)

The Voice of 'Reason' (Morgan)

"The standard of this woeful article is evident in the first three words,..."

The Voice of Ludwig

"An eminently sensible article James"

The Voice of Elise

"My goodness! I have never read such an ignorant one sided view in my life! and I'm not even Muslim!"

THEN....there is Pericles... ooh my

"In all places, at all times?"
and
"The article doesn't even start to allow for such distinctions."

Comment: Er..'no' your are correct but..the article assumes the readers have a tiny bit of common sense.

Then Manorina:

All those females who wish to wear these absurd garments should export themselves to countries where they are acceptable.

The Author:

The current debate has been hijacked by cultural relativists and religious apologists who insist on making this a discussion about xenophobia and the rights of religious freedom.

To which I say "Amen"

How extraordinary, Boaz, that you continue your almost perfect record, of grasping the wrong end of the stick, lifting it high over your head and brandishing about it like some form of "I'm with Stupid" banner.

Whose arrow points straight down.

>>The Author: The current debate has been hijacked by cultural relativists and religious apologists who insist on making this a discussion about xenophobia and the rights of religious freedom. To which I say "Amen"<<

This is so diametrically opposed to the debate that has been conducted here, I'm forced to wonder whether you occupy the same dimension in time and space. Perhaps you are merely the protrusion into our dimension of a hitherto unknown intergalactic being, struggling to learn our strange and wonderful ways.

The majority of posters here, by some distance, have concurred that it is nothing to do with "religious freedom", and everything to do with the freedom of the individual.

Furthermore, it is only the "ban it at all costs" brigade who make a song and dance about the religion of the wearer.

As indeed would your own contribution to the discussion, if you were honest enough to make one.

Matilda,

Yes, we need to clarify the vocabulary we are using. I was under the impression that in English, a contract means something which two parties agree on, but you include in the definition of that noun also "the implicit relationship between the state and the citizen" (albeit in my specific case, and that of other immigrants, this relationship is in fact explicit).

Can I therefore deduce that in your dictionary, the implicit relationship between a rapist and his victim also constitutes a contract, as in: "You relax and open your legs nicely, then I will refrain from sticking this knife in your throat"? now suppose that victim managed to escape - would you then blame her for breaching that social contract?